I couldn’t know the value of taking CMN5150 upon enrollment, but this class proved to be incredibly useful for my graduate studies as Professor Levy’s ideas informed the theoretical base for my Major Research Paper. Specifically, the book I read for the Short Text assignment, Henry Jenkins’s Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, was particularly influential in my decision to research fan culture and Internet amateurism. Jenkins (2006) discusses the concepts of participatory culture and collective intelligence through case studies of the fan communities Survivor, American Idol, The Matrix, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Global Frequency and the American presidential campaign of 2004. While I am concentrating Jenkins’s ideas of participatory culture, defined as: “culture in which fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content” (290), Jenkins’s discussion on Professor Levy’s collective intelligence theory helped provide a conceptual map for my research on fan communities. Focusing on sexually explicit erotic fan fiction produced within the Harry Potter fandom, I will be researching the idea of community and the collective production of amateur media within the fandom, and what this creation means for members, individually and collectively.
 |
| Henry Jenkins |
 |
| Professor Levy - in a similar pose. |
To discuss collective intelligence, Jenkins (2006) draws upon Professor Levy’s theory, using knowledge communities wherein “no one knows everything, but everyone knows something” (27). Jenkins defines the term as “the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal. This ability is key to open source projects (282). Being able to pool knowledge with others can allow us to solve challenges far more complex than the individual mind can process.”As discussed by Youna Zhang in her presentation on Jenkins’s book, the ‘spoiling’ Survivor community is an online community that works together to figure out the details of the upcoming season before it airs, which include the contestants’ names, the final four, and the winner. It is clear that none of the mysteries would be answered if the entire community did not bring their knowledge together, making the group collective intelligence in action.
Professor Lévy also discusses political power emerging from knowledge communities, “which will operate alongside and sometimes directly challenge the hegemony of the nation-state or the economic might of corporate capitalism” (29). This may lead to “achievable utopia”, wherein the “sharing of knowledge and the exercise of grassroots power become normative” (235). Another one of Jenkins’s texts, “Interactive Audiences? The ‘Collective Intelligence of Media Fans” (2003), discusses collective intelligence, writing that Professor Levy’s “the knowledge space” or “cosmopedia” might “emerge as citizens more fully realize the potentials of the new media environment” (136). These two compelling visions are the result of increased participation, and imply the power gained by the knowledge community when all members are committed to participating.
Professor Lévy also discusses political power emerging from knowledge communities, “which will operate alongside and sometimes directly challenge the hegemony of the nation-state or the economic might of corporate capitalism” (29). This may lead to “achievable utopia”, wherein the “sharing of knowledge and the exercise of grassroots power become normative” (235). Another one of Jenkins’s texts, “Interactive Audiences? The ‘Collective Intelligence of Media Fans” (2003), discusses collective intelligence, writing that Professor Levy’s “the knowledge space” or “cosmopedia” might “emerge as citizens more fully realize the potentials of the new media environment” (136). These two compelling visions are the result of increased participation, and imply the power gained by the knowledge community when all members are committed to participating.
Howard Rheingold also covered the idea of collective intelligence, as shown by Brianne Tulk’s presentation on October 7th. Rheingold discusses how mobile communication devices, peer to peer methods, etc. are making it possible for groups of people to organize collective actions - be they political, social or economic. He calls these groups ‘smart mobs’, and this term has been adopted by the media to explain any kind of group think as leading to group action. The Harry Potter fan fiction community, as discussed by Jenkins (2006), could be seen as a ‘smart mob’, as they organized through online forum to fight legal threats made by Warner Brothers regarding intellectual property.
Another book on the syllabus that covered collective intelligence was Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams’s book, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. As Justin Hoeppener and Theodora Simon discussed during their presentation on the book, collective intelligence is mass collaboration. In order for this concept to happen, four principles need to exist: Openness, Peering, Sharing and Acting Globally.
In addition to the books on the syllabus, several of Professor Levy’s links were useful for their discussion on collective intelligence. In particular, Francis Heylighen talks about the ‘global grain, defined as “a collective intelligence formed by all people on the planet together with their technological artifacts (computers, sensors, robots, etc.) insofar as they help in processing information. The function of the global brain is to integrate the information gathered by all its constituents, and to use it in order to solve problems, as well for its individual constituents as for the global collective”.
For an alternative view of collective intelligence, I drew from Andrew Keen’s polemical book: Cult of the Amateur: How the Internet is Killing Our Society (2008).[1] While Keen is being deliberately inflammatory regarding the democratization of the web, Keen’s discussion on collective intelligence rings true on some points. He writes: “Clearly, the wisdom of the crowd is an illusion”, as “History has proven that the crowd is not often very wise. After all, many unwise ideas – slavery, infanticide, George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, Britney Spears – have been extremely popular with crowd” (95 – 96). Being a bit of a cynic, I do agree with some of Keen’s points. His basic thesis is that the “free user-generated content spawned and extolled by the Web 2.0 revolution is decimating the ranks of our cultural gatekeepers, as professional critics, journalists, editors, musicians, moviemakers, and other purveyors of expert information are being replaced … by amateur bloggers” (16).
Following this idea, I believe the democratization of the web may be a good thing in theory, but I feel as though the price for every person to have a blog, or a voice, is changing the way we experience information, knowledge and most importantly evaluate quality. Bloggers 'report' news and amateurs produce their own music and publish their own books - there is a peculiar sort of equality on the Internet that is shaping our notions of quality. When everyone can be a journalist on the Internet, what's the value of professional journalism? Are we losing anything with the equality of the Internet?
For my Major Research Paper, I hope to look at fan culture, focusing on the Harry Potter fanfiction community, and discuss the evaluation of quality within the community and the fan created contents’ worth to society as a whole. On his blog, Jenkins writes: “Collective intelligence can be seen as an alternative source of media power. We are learning how to use that power through our day-to-day interactions within convergence culture. Right now, we are mostly using collective power through our recreational life, but it has implications at all levels of our culture”. Keen, Jenkins and Professor Levy all bring up good points: what are the implications of collective, user-generated content for today’s society? What is the loss of cultural 'gatekeepers' doing to our notions of quality and our collective sense of importance, and is there a way back from this trend?
For my Major Research Paper, I hope to look at fan culture, focusing on the Harry Potter fanfiction community, and discuss the evaluation of quality within the community and the fan created contents’ worth to society as a whole. On his blog, Jenkins writes: “Collective intelligence can be seen as an alternative source of media power. We are learning how to use that power through our day-to-day interactions within convergence culture. Right now, we are mostly using collective power through our recreational life, but it has implications at all levels of our culture”. Keen, Jenkins and Professor Levy all bring up good points: what are the implications of collective, user-generated content for today’s society? What is the loss of cultural 'gatekeepers' doing to our notions of quality and our collective sense of importance, and is there a way back from this trend?
Thanks to Professor Levy for bringing these ideas to my attention.
For an interesting discussion on gamers and collective intelligence, (cut from here for verbosity), please see: http://www.sevenlevelsleft.com/blog/?p=96
[1] My classmates Curtis Naphan and Tanya Hewitt have also highlighted media that discuss a similar view to Keen’s. Mark Bauerlein, in The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) discusses this generation’s shortcomings as coming from the uneven information of the Internet. Tanya has posted a link to a video, wherein Nicholas Carr discusses how the Internet is “making us stupid”.
(http://ww3.tvo.org/video/164188/nicholas-carr-internet-making-us-stupid)
Keen, Andrew. (2007). The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York, NY: Random House Publishing.
Francis Heyligen on the Global Brain
References:
Jenkins, Henry, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
- “Future of Fandom.” Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press. 357 – 364.
- “Interactive Audiences? The Collective Intelligence of Media Fans.” Fandoms, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
Keen, Andrew. (2007). The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York, NY: Random House Publishing.
Francis Heyligen on the Global Brain
